The New Retail Thread

JohnAKeith said:
How is limiting the # of licenses a "bad" thing?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think limiting the licenses is a bad thing, but i hate hearing stories about $300,000 license transfers. There has got to be a better system whereby the city collects the cash, not the private party who holds the license (this is how i understand it anyways--someone please correct me if i am wrong.)

Maybe make the license tied to an individual business, and if it fails, then the license is voided. Then, a new party can apply for a license and pay the city a cheaper amount than it would cost to acquire one from a private party.

This makes the cost of doing business cheaper, and ensures that there are no licenses being wasted a la lyons group.
 
I would lift all limits on liquor licenses. They are all controlled by seedy characters like the Lyons Group and other bar-conglomerates anyway. A little guy who wants to open a restaurant doesn't have a shot in this city. Getting rid of the liquor license caps would help make Boston a little less national-chain-centric and would be a big boost to small restaurants and bars.

I'd abolish the whole seedy licensing board too. Somebody would go down to City Hall and buy a liquor license for $150,000. That would be money directly into the coffers of the City. If there are any problems with noise, underage drinking, etc, the license is just yanked. Nice and simple. No more bribery, no more hiring the "right lawyer", no more horse-trading in smoky backrooms. If you want to open a bar, by all means, feel free. Just couple that with the strictest possible punishments for those who fail to operate within the full scope of the law.

Is this really so radical? Seems so obvious to me.
 
pelhamhall said:
Is this really so radical?
Click to expand...

In an idiocracy, yes. And when it's corrupt (not necessarily -- as far as I know -- in the sense of actual bribes, but in the broader and potentially more damaging sense of power-brokering, sketchy backroom deals, and vaguely vesting in one person or structure authorities that elsewhere are generally explicitly and legislatively determined), common sense and efficacy don't stand a chance.
 
No licenses. If you want to serve alcohol, fine. Put down a $50,000 deposit with City Hall which is reimbursable over time, and from which fines for violations can be deducted.
 
^^Thus creating a sunk cost with little to no incentive to avoid violations.
 
^

Shepard said:
reimbursable over time
Click to expand...

And therefore easy to finance.

If you rent a motorboat and they require a fully-reimbursable $5000 deposit, you don't say "hmm, sunk cost, let's crash this thing."
 
^^Missed that.

Still not sure that $50,000 is enough of an incentive to provide proper enforcement. It is about a years salary for a bouncer.

Losing the right to sell liquor, however...
 
Agreed. Just an example number, but it should have a low enough threshold for mom and pops to not see a barrier to entry. Maybe the deposit is proportional to property value, or projected sales...

Anyway, it's just one idea. The current process incentivizes responsible behaviors, but also creates some backwards incentives too while blocking out new enterprise. There are other systems that incentivize responsible behavior without the adverse consequences.
 
I say they give out the licenses free to whomever asks for one, with the stipulation that it can be revoked upon violation. Seems simple and fair.

Edit: You might run into some (a lot of?) corruption on the enforcement end, but with no fines/fees involved a lot of the temptation is removed.
That said, if you are facing having you license revoked I'm guessing you would start waving a lot of money around.

Old problem.
 
Presumably alcohol consumption generates negative externalities. Shouldn't people have to pay for those? Just as there are specific levies on gambling and cigarettes.
 
What would have to happen for bars and restaurants to get a liquor license beyond 2 am? I think Boston bars should be open until at least 3 or 4.
 
I'd say have unlimited licenses with some minor bureaucracy. You'll want to do background checks, e.g., to make sure you aren't selling pedophiles (I know, extreme example, but you get my point) alcohol licenses.

But there should be a price on them. Alcohol is not only a sweet, sweet nurturing mother and provider of goodness but can also cause damages to city property, public health, etc., that the city will eventually pay for. I don't see anything wrong with having publicans foot some of that bill. Maybe $10-50K per year, depending on the size of the pub? Without doing any analysis, it seems like that wouldn't be unreasonable.

Worst-case scenario is the current one: When you have a limited number of fairly inexpensive licenses. That's a recipe for corruption by the officials, as well as black markets. When there's a limited number of something lucrative, there will be people willing to pay lots of money for that good. If the city doesn't charge a lot of money, somebody else will -- and that money will go to some dude, rather than the public coffers. Reminds me of this fascinating case from last summer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/dining/01truck.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/dining/01permit.html?_r=1&ref=dining

Or the Boss, whose principled stance in favor of under-pricing his tickets has resulted in nothing but a huge black market and scalpers pocketing the money that he could've earned (and handed to charity if he wanted):

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/10/090810fa_fact_seabrook
 
There should be unlimited alcohol licenses as long as you meet criteria like a backround check etc etc. Competitive balance would smother many of them so the number of bars would be marginally more wouldn't it?
 
^ How does it work in France? It seems to work so well in France.
 
ablarc said:
^ How does it work in France? It seems to work so well in France.
Click to expand...

It works in France because the French actually have a mature attitude about alcohol, unlike Americans who see vice in just about everything.
 
JohnAKeith said:
How is limiting the # of licenses a "bad" thing?
Click to expand...


For one, the licenses are absurdly expensive to procure at several hundred thousand dollars each for most. Because of acquisition price of these licenses (the actual price paid for the license is only the beginning. i.e. legal fees etc.) for the most part, only the large restaurateurs and nightclub impresarios can afford to get these licenses leaving the little guys out in the dark. The result is 24 establishments owned by the Lyons Group and the like, all within 10 blocks of each other, holding an inordinate number of liquor licenses.
 
As Suffolk83 says, it's not clear that there's much of a market for that many additional bars/clubs in Boston. That said, the status quo here seems absolutely idiotic. What is the rationale for having a hard cap on the number of liquor licenses available, other than to fend off attacks by the Women's Temperance Union circa 1913? Does the city really think that every commercial space will devolve into a booze den? Doesn't it realize there's a market for bars, and that market itself will regulate their number? (This unfortunately may not seem to hold true with the likes of CVS, Dunkin Donuts, retail banks or burritos today, but they'll all be headed for a normalization sooner or later.)

... Just one more area where the tiniest tweak, not costing a dime, would make Boston a better place to be, and its bureaucracy that much less irksome.
 
itchy said:
As Suffolk83 says, it's not clear that there's much of a market for that many additional bars/clubs in Boston.
Click to expand...

Spots in JP are opening left and right it seems, and there were some battles brewing over who gets which license
 
aquaman said:
It works in France because the French actually have a mature attitude about alcohol, unlike Americans who see vice in just about everything.
Click to expand...
... and therefore an opportunity for illicit profit.

Take the profit potential out of the license itself, and you might get French levels of maturity.


But I don't know what I'm talking about.
 
Funny, I had to write a paper on the Women's Christian Temperance Union circa the 1920's just a few hours ago. Even funnier, their standards are still prevalent today, as evidenced by this discussion. You know, they didn't have problems with liquor licenses during prohibition...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top